Sanskrit Pranabhrt Or What Supports what

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler

Page 2

394
A. WEZLER
SANSKRIT PRĀNABHRT
395
lock of hair on the crown of the head' . in contradistinction to a person who wears a diadem or chaplet tied on the crown of the head. and "being characterized by a tubercle/large ears" (7) . in contradistinction to a person who wears ear-rings. But even if Haradatta is not to be trusted as regards his opinion that the suffix under discussion is met with, in the object language, in fact only as added to designations of "parts of the body" (prānyangád eva hisyate), the first of the two examples is in any case of such a kind that there is no room for any doubt that what is referred to by pranin with reference to it is again a human being. Finally the examples found in the CV and Kasika respectively. which are meant to explain and justify the addition of the expression apránin in Pån. 2.4.6 and 6.3.77 viz. bråhmanaksatriyau (CV 2.2.53) brālmanaksatriyavisfildrh (Kāš.) and ago wsalah fitena (CV 5.2.96 as well as Kas on 6.3.77). "the low/wicked man/the südra is stiff with cold , are further evidence of the fact that pronin does not, in the Astädhyāyi, also mean "animal", but quite evidently "breathing living being", i.e. that the term denotes a large category of living beings from man down to fish all of which can easily be observed to breathe, and as long as they are alive; significantly prdnin docs not include plants and most probably also not the lower animals”, i.e. animals which are not easily recognized as (equally) breathing
nyaya. There is no reason whatsoever, be it factual or theoretical or grammatical, to call herbs and trees the most important living beings." On the other hand, Pāņini can certainly be expected to have shared the view, prevailing as it was in Ancient India, to say the least, that plants are also living beings.
Vasu and Katre seem to have come to the same conclusion or to have had the same feeling, but their proposal to render pranin by 'animal" likewise docs not stand critical examination. It is true that in a number of cases names of animals are given as examples or counter-cxamples, in the Mahābhāsya: svart, "dog", kaka, "crow", fuka, "parrot' (MBhasya I 450.171)", kapota, "pigeon" (MBhāsya II 325.157.2 etc.) and other birds like gdhra, casa and bhasa (MBhāsya II 326.16f.), but also svavidh, "porcupine" (MBhāsya II 327.11f) and matsya, "lish" (MBhäsya III 443.200.). To these have to be added vydghra, "tiger" (CV 4.4.82)", srgala, "jackal" (Kas on 2.3.17), birds like the "peacock" (maytira) and the "partridge (tittiri) (Kas on 4.3.135) and, last but not least, vānara, "ape, monkey" (Kas on 5.4.97).
On the other hand, however, Panini uses the expression prânyanga, "(constitutive) part of a pränin", viz. in 2.4.2 dvandvasca pranitiryasenăngdndm (scil. ekavacanam, cf. 2.4.1), and there can not indeed be the least doubt that what he refers to are singular dvandva compounds like panipadam (CV 2.2.58 and Kasika) or firogrivam (Kasika); at least the first of these examples is clear evidence of the fact that the notion pranin covers human beings, too. This conclusion is confirmed by a number of examples adduced to illustrate other sütras of Panini's. The first to be discussed is the compound kofanisada, mentioned by Patañjali (MBhāsya 11 438.131).17 in tacitly referring to 5.2.128 (dvandvopatāpagarhydt präristhdd inih); unfortunately this passage has not only been overlooked by the compilers of our dictionaries, but obviously the compound also is not attested in other texts; it is hence but a mere guess that particular pieces of clothes are referred to by this word. Jinendrabuddhi, however, seems not to be in any doubt that what is denoted by this dvandva "belongs to or is worn by" (pranistha) a human being, i.e. a female. This certainly holds good for the denotatum of the words given as examples in the CV and in the Kasika for Pan. 5.2.128, viz. "bracelet and armlet" (katakavalayin!), "shell-bracelet(s) and anklet(s)" (Sankhamupurini, in the Kas. only) and various diseases . perhaps also for that which is to be held in contempt' (garhya). Particularly clear in this regard is P&. 5.2.96 (pranisthad ito laj anyatarasydn), according to which the secondary sulfix la is optionally added to a stem ending in , provided that it denotes something which is prdistha. for most convincingly this rule is illustrated in the CV and in the Kasika by the examples ciidalal, side by side with cúdávan, and in addition in the Kās.) by kamikālahwhich can be replaced by karidwan, and vice versa: what these Avrnecions mean is according to Haradatta "being characterized by
1.2. Now, il prdnabhrt. of 5.1.129 . is not synonymous with pranin, in the strict sense of having exactly the same meaning, its meaning could indeed be "animal", i.e. it could denote the category of all (breathing) living beings except for men, and perhaps for lower animals, too. Yet, the examples given in the CV and in the Kasikā point to a somewhat different direction. It is not, of course, by any means certain that these examples. apart from being representative, perhaps, of a (much) larger group of words covered by the grammatical rule. may be regarded as nevertheless circumscribing and thus determining the kind of animals referred to in 5.1.129. But if this latter assumption is madetentatively and argumenti causa what suggests itself is quite clearly that what is referred to by pranablut are particular animals only, i.e. that the "horse' (afva) and the 'camel" (ustra) are mentioned because they are typical representatives of this special group; and this group cannot then but be that of domestic animals. This assumption cannot, however, be verified with the help of the Astadhyayi itself as there are no further occurrences of the word prānabhrt in it. But quite clearly a method can be applied that has proved successful in other cases, too, viz. that of taking into consideration the testimony of Vedic literature. After all Panini's own language, even his meta-language, cannot be regarded as an island completely isolated from the mainland of contemporary Old Indo-Aryan which in its turn has developed out of the Vedic idiom(s) and dialects.